starrymessenger

And you should read my post. We are not arming the Ukrainians, not even with only defensive weapons. I don't know where you get the idea that we are. The Brits gave them 20 or so small broken down army surplus armoured cars. Thats it. Maybe you should do more research. The Turks are supporting Turcic fighters indiginous to Syria. The Saudis are financing non Jihadist fighters and, unofficially, Jihadist fighters in Syria. All Sunnis. One of the consequences of untimely inaction is that the stakes are raised. A more assertive and timely foreign policy can help avert dangerous escalation. Our surface to air missiles shot down lots of Russian planes and helicopters in Afganistan. An important result was that this contributed significantly to the implosion of the Soviet Union. Not a bad thing. I said the Syrian conflict was a civil war. It is. I also said that it was a regional conflict aligned along religious lines. It is. I think we can add to that by saying its also a global geopolitical conflict, one that Russia is winning.

Yes, we are supplying Ukraine - with meals, blankets and night goggles lol! And the non-Jihadist moderates in Syria are being financed and equipped, albeit probably inadequately, by other Sunni powers of the region - Turkey and Saudi Arabia. When we actually did supply the Afgan rebels in their bunfight with the Russians, they had surface to air missiles that helped counter Russian airpower. The moderates in Syria dont have that, as you may have noticed by the results.Of course the war in Syria is a civil war, to the extent that we give any credence to great power drawn political divisions (which have endured since the early 20th century, however imperfectly). And of course the struggle has a supranational aspect i.e. Shia (Iran) vs Sunni (Saudi Arabia, Turkey etc...).

Outside of the Black Sea its their only warm weather port so of course the Russians already had a limited presence there. They had no war planes though and that is what has turned the tide. And of course Obama showed weakness because he feared a confrontation with the Russians. Thats what he does after all. And some proxy war indeed, where he fails to supply his putative allies, as in Ukraine.

The Russians moved into the vacuum created when Obama refused to enforce his red line and accepted their "compromise". He could have and should have acted independently of them. Only thereafter did they move to support Assad with the air power now being used out of Latakia (and a new base currently being developed). Its that air power that is turning the tide in Assad's favour.

This is what happens when a nasty streetfighting urchin who grew up stomping rats in the grey low rise apartment his family shared with three others takes on a dope dealing mollycoddled prep schooled Harvard law professor.

You're right about it being a mess but unfortunately it is also a theater of tremendous strategic importance. Its where the world's supply of the cheapest oil is. Its also the location from which millions of refugees are flooding into Western Europe and destabilizing our important allies there. The world is too small a place for the preeminent world power not to have strategic interests there, as well as elsewhere - pretty much in every important geography actually. All we had to do was to impose a no fly zone in Syria and follow through on our red line and that would have sufficed to bring Assad down. Instead the intrepid Obama outsourced the problem to the Ruskies, who probably couldn't believe their luck. Now things have pretty much turned 180 degrees against us in a perfect storm of mixed incompetence and weakness.

Why wouldn't we just take out Assad instead. Its what should have happened a long time ago. He and Putin are the ones responsible for the suffering of the Syrian people. Since when are Russia and Iran our allies? They are not. They are our ideological and geopolitical enemies. Of course we wont take out Assad, but thats only because our foreign policy is gutless. I understand that we are all afraid of Russia, but giving them a free hand is more likely to cause everybody to piss blood than standing up would. Actually its probably too late in thelife of the current administration to do anything and thats maybe a good thing. The greatest threat to world peace is probably Obama belatedly finding a spine.

Didn't Rex say he wanted to build a lunatic asylum?

If Pres Obama has proven anything in foreign policy it is that his is the JV team.

Would not be surprised. NT and ILB in FA. DE in the draft. All needs and makes most sense dollarwise.

OTOH I hope he misses no game time for this when the dust settles. Fact is this O absolutely cannot afford to do without him if we are to make a run in 2016. He is probably its most accomplished member - and a dumbass. Probation and many hours of community service is what I'd like to see.

Well maybe not 37 but some are.

Great Superbowl. One of the best IMO (top 25% anyway). Thought it funny that the talking heads (Faulk, Michael Irvin etc...) were all wondering whether the expected blowout of the Broncos would be big enuf to raise the Question whether the Panthers were the best team ever. I guess they are now amusing themselves with the question whether the Broncos D ranks with the 85 Bears. Hate to admit it, but this game shows me just how good Brady, Gronk & Co really are. They had that #1 rated D on the ropes.

Very much doubt that the facts here connote the type of premeditation in a course of conduct that exposes an accomplice and conspirator (before the fact) to the same criminal sanctions as the primary perpetrator. And as to your earlier point regarding an insurance claim or settlement facilitating a criminal conviction I'm pretty sure it would not be allowed into evidence as lacking probative value. The opposite is what may be possible i.e. If OJ had been convicted of felony murder 1 it might have been admissible in the subsequent civil trial.

What does insurance have to do with criminal responsibility? And what does insurance coverage (or the lack thereof) as between the insurer and insured have to do with determining even the civil consequences as between the participants in the altercation? What am I missing here? Maybe so, but that "symbiotic relationship" may come under some serious and probably embarassing scrutiny then IMO. Remember the DA in Florida wouldnt even indict Ahern for shooting a guy's face off because he would'nt press charges - even tho he could be forced to give his evidence under oath or be in contempt.

Maybe the fact that two of Philly's finest were involved in the altercation works in McCoy's favour. Unless the evidence shows that the players were the clear aggressors and the cops just defending themselves the fact that the athletes were the better street fighters maybe accounts by itself for the result. If its really a case where both the cops and the players were equally at fault the police and the DA might have to charge everyone involved or face the argument that they were taking sides and using the criminal justice system to selectively punish only the non law enforcement participants. They may not be above doing that in a low profile situation but this one attracts national attention and they may be wary of the spotlight. Or maybe they go ahead and charge everyone with something but with the players having the more onerous charges. Maybe the two cops decide (or are encouraged) to not press charges. Boys will be boys, especially bad boys.

(unfortunately) I must agree. Peyton is done. Brady not so much. Switch QBs yesterday and Denver wins by 21 points.

I assumed sarcasm.

Post coital cigarette

And he'll be serving a four game suspension Beginning of the end (I hope)

Thats a fumble

What?

Crucial series comming up

If the run game starts to click its game over.

Helping hand from a concerned official.